Defense against subconscious telepathic hypnosis

True victory is a battle that never took place. However it appears anything can be made to look like a battle. In this thread I would like to discuss the possibility of being able to induce hypnosis over a distance, without any physical interaction. Could it be possible and if so how, to hypnotize a person telepathically? How to defend against such a thing?

To start, hypnosis is as defined in Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

And telepathy is also how it is defined on Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

The arguments against are that

1) telepathy is not possible at all
2) hypnosis can only be done with the subjects approval
3) there is no subconscious, there is no part of our minds which gathers information which we are unaware of, there is just a growing brain as it is able to sense more of the world and is able to gather and process information

Arguments for are:

1) there is so much humanity hasn't learned about yet, there might be telepathy but so complicated we cannot sense it in any way at all so we can never discover it, unless "nature" grants us the ability and develops organs (or in the case of the brain develops some new part). Just as there were once early forms of life which had no ears while sound existed anyway, it is because that "life" sensed the vibrations of sound and something grew to hear sound, ears exist today. Just so there was light but no sensors yet and no circuitry to translate those light particles into something else which we can see.
2) while this may be true and assuming hypnosis exist, an approval can only be made if the subject is aware of the hypnosis.
3) the same with 1, it might be there are many things we are unaware of and it might be our mind processes those things in an unknown manner.

Assuming there is some unseen part of this world (let's call it "astral", something which is nonphysical but interacts with the physical) it might be possible one's astral energy can be manipulated by another's astral energy in such a way there are parts of the subject which he is unaware of hence easily to shape. Or even those parts he is aware of but is unable to prevent being changed, like mental constructs can be changed overtime because of unrefutable arguments (due to lack of information) which changes those constructs and eventually this is something which is felt in daily life. Other than learning as much as possible, how to defend against such a thing? What if someone can be hypnotized from over a distance but is given information the subject is unaware of yet and cannot give an approval for in the first place?

Strength of will, brother. We must persevere against ignorance, and recognise our thoughts as our own. As a collective consciousness, we are not only perhaps subject to astral manipulation, but we are influenced by other people's thoughts as well. It is an interesting and challenging issue to deal with on a daily basis, I agree.

Originally posted by purplemonkeydishwasher
Strength of will, brother. We must persevere against ignorance, and recognise our thoughts as our own. As a collective consciousness, we are not only perhaps subject to astral manipulation, but we are influenced by other people's thoughts as well. It is an interesting and challenging issue to deal with on a daily basis, I agree.

Why must the individual be part of a collective consciousness when it's own is sufficient? How would you define the borders of different collectives or is there only just 1 (world) collective consciousness?